Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate

Originally posted by Gorman91
The ability for all your great men to be born required a mother. And the father had a mother, and his father had a mother, etc etc. You can go all the way back to infinity to when men were animals and there was no intelligence.

The woman selected a smart man. The daughters were smarter, and passed on their dominace genes of intelligence.

Thus women are the source of all men's intelligence.

Argument over.

The end.

heres another read the last line of my to last quotes from you, the prefect bit on the last and the woman are the source bit on this, thay are both sexist my friend

edit because i hit reply by accident, my god please let this be the end

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Aceofclubs]

Originally posted by Edrick

We are not debating whether this or that tribe HAD women warriors, we are debating the existance of a WHOLLY woman tribe *OF* warriors that went by the name of "Amazons"

Well if thats what we are debating, that is silly. Because "Amazon" is what the Greeks called them. What they called themselves should be irrelevant. Also, you are unlikely to find a tribe of "wholly" women, much like you are unlikely to find a tribe that is "wholly" male. You see there needs to be special touching in order that babies can be born.... but we will save that for another thread.

What we do know is that the idea that historically only men have occupied the position "warrior" is untrue.

www.pbs.org...

But Davis-Kimball has found that in reality, warrior women were quite common among ancient Eurasian societies and also among other nomads. "Our new evidence shows that women have always had a pretty prominent place in nomadic societies," she says.

www.archaeology.org...

The warrior women known to ancient Greek authors as Amazons were long thought to be creatures of myth. Now 50 ancient burial mounds near the town of Pokrovka, Russia, near the Kazakhstan border, have yielded skeletons of women buried with weapons, suggesting the Greek tales may have had some basis in fact.

You also seem to be arguing that men were the only hunters, and that somehow hunting is responsible for...............what? Civilization? Interesting. Because hunter gatherers generally dont achieve what we call civilization. Hunting is NOT the key to human success if you think our civilization is "success." What is? The domestication of animals and plants. Although we will likely never know whether it was males or females who began that little innovation, I would say there is a very good chance that the skill set that would lead to those things would fall more readily into the females basket. (Although like Aeons has said, there is no "male" and "female" set of qualities, it is a scale with more men gathered on one end and more females on the other, but males and females mixed throughout. )

Also responsible for human "success" has been the little innovation of "culture." The instilling and passing along of the innovations of one generation onto another. While men also do that, it would be hard to argue that those primarily charged by nature with the care and feeding of offspring are not absolutely crucial to that process. Those would be women.

Arguing that women have made no innovations that have made our civilization great, when "historically" (in the time of writing) women were often not the historians, is weak. Men have made great contributions to our technology. That is unquestionable. But women when allowed have contributed much. One could look at what we have and say, "oh how great it all is, and all created by men," or one could look around and say, "we have only half what we could have had, had half the worlds geniuses not been denied education for a couple thousand years or better."

Originally posted by Edrick
Are you saying that someone with no mathematical abilities, but who follows directions can score well on the math part of an SAT?

No, I would guess he is saying that someone with great mathematical abilities can suffer from test anxiety and do poorly.

Originally posted by Edrick
Intelligence distributions are quite different for men and women.

Where as men have a more varied curve, women have a more average curve.

Citation needed. Particularly if you are attempting to use this as proof of superior male intellect overall. Because what I found while similar,

en.wikipedia.org...

Studies consistently show greater variance in the performance of men compared to that of women (i.e., men are more represented at the extremes of performance), and that men and women have statistically significant differences in average scores on tests of particular abilities.

Does not show that males are superior intellectually. What it means is that there is great variance in the performance of men, as compared to the performance of women. This is not all good news for men, as this hypothesis as to why highlights;

en.wikipedia.org...

Some observed differences in the variability of skills between the sexes can be explained genetically: many brain-related genes are located on the X chromosome, of which women have two copies and men only one. A mutation in one of these genes, whether positive or negative, will thus have a higher impact in males than in females (where the second, presumably non-mutated copy will mitigate the effect of the mutated one).

Greater variance may mean that there may be slightly more male geniuses, but it also means there are more male morons. Because of our two X's, we are less likely, (though clearly not exempt) to fall into either category.

I personally do not argue that women are naturally kinder, more intelligent, or fair, more aggressive, etc., than males. Nor would I argue that men are naturally more intelligent, aggressive, fairer or kinder than females. There are scales, and more men than women end up on the high end of some of them, more women than men on others. The only fair thing to do is to evaluate people individually, based upon their merits as individuals. The fact that more men than women end up on the "taller" end of the tall short scale does not diminish the fact that I am taller than many men. Because I am an individual.

"Women" would not have created a warless society. Because there is nothing all "women" agree on. Just like all "men" are not warlike. The reason societies tend to be warlike is not because of men, but because aggressive people tend to end up in charge. Rightly or wrongly. If women were given fully equal opportunity to move upwards in politics, I would guess that the ones who made it to the top would differ little in their aggression levels from the males they competed with.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


nice post i agree with almost all of this, strange i though the sane would have left us to bicker a page or two ago

reply to post by Aceofclubs


Again I fail to see how this is sexist? It's natural selection. Intelligence is an impressive trait. It's why there are so many intelligent animals on earth.'

If it's sexist to chose a smarter woman/man in marriage, then fine, so be it. When I do get married, it's on the check list that she must be smarter than me simply because it's a benefit to the offspring. Call me sexist for it. I'll have scholarship children to gloat about.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91

Men and woman can do much that you seem to think they can't

So, you are saying that Genetic Engineering, Artificial Cell Manipulation, and Artificial Stem Cell alteration is a fundamental part of Human Biology?

You might as well say the universe never existed because it's just a bubble of higgs fields. Are you making a point?

That was what I was asking you.

Many people discovered the theory of relativity.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'"

"Many of the ideas had already been published by others, as detailed in History of special relativity. However, Einstein's paper introduces a new theory of time, distance, mass, and energy that was consistent with electromagnetism, but omitted the force of gravity."

So, you are saying that his contributions to this field were not his contributions to this field?

Einstein was a player, and he knew many women. He worked with them. that and a bunch of other stuff.

And this nullifies his contributions to science, How exactly?

You can just watch this and other similar videos.

www.youtube.com...

This has WHAT to do with your original point?

Homo erectus females were 50% bigger than their predecessors, and more bulk than modern day woman. I provided you with all the proof in my last links. Not reading them and assuming they're wrong does not make you right.

I have no reason to doubt that ancient women were much larger than modern day women.

You have yet to prove that the men and women "Did the Same things" as WAS YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT.

That wasn't your last curve

mjperry.blogspot.com...

Are you implying that there are people whose scores are somehow not accounted for by the RECORDS of SAT scores?

its your opportunity to prove me wrong once and for all if you so desire to take up the challenge....

You have already provided AMPLE opportunity to prove you wrong.

You have yet to divulge what you meant by "Second Derivative Test", and I'm not going to do your research for you.

-Edrick

reply to post by Gorman91


ahh i see now your one who can`t be wrong even when thay are nailed down. sooo i`ll try one last time these two statements from you

Thus women are the source of all men's intelligence.

God made it that way because they're so damn perfect.

ARE SEXIST filp them around and see

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Well if thats what we are debating, that is silly. Because "Amazon" is what the Greeks called them.

I was debating the EXISTENCE of the "Amazons"

Which has yet to be proven.

What we do know is that the idea that historically only men have occupied the position "warrior" is untrue.

I was not debating that.

You also seem to be arguing that men were the only hunters, and that somehow hunting is responsible for...............what? Civilization? Interesting.

The word "Seem" in your post describes the inherent flaw in your logic.

What you think that I am arguing, is not, in fact, what I was arguing.

Arguing that women have made no innovations that have made our civilization great, when "historically" (in the time of writing) women were often not the historians, is weak.

So you have proof to the contrary? or just assumptions?

But women when allowed have contributed much. One could look at what we have and say, "oh how great it all is, and all created by men," or one could look around and say, "we have only half what we could have had, had half the worlds geniuses not been denied education for a couple thousand years or better."

"When Allowed" is a hilarious statement.

IT sure is good that the United States was "Allowed" to separate from the British Empire, and form its own nation... oh Wait..

No, I would guess he is saying that someone with great mathematical abilities can suffer from test anxiety and do poorly.

Well, I will not debate that point.

But WAS that his point?

Greater variance may mean that there may be slightly more male geniuses, but it also means there are more male morons. Because of our two X's, we are less likely, (though clearly not exempt) to fall into either category.

Yes, that is true... there are more male morons AND geniuses, than female.

But morons don't contribute much, do they?

Genius DOES however, so the amount of morons does not "Cancel Out" the work of Geniuses.

I personally do not argue that women are naturally kinder, more intelligent, or fair, more aggressive, etc., than males. Nor would I argue that men are naturally more intelligent, aggressive, fairer or kinder than females. There are scales, and more men than women end up on the high end of some of them, more women than men on others.

Yes, when dealing with large groups of people, you cannot say that "All" fit into one category, and "All" into another.

What we CAN do, is see the Trends of such groups.

There are more Male Geniuses than Female Geniuses.

The only fair thing to do is to evaluate people individually, based upon their merits as individuals.

You cannot do that when debating about Society, which is inherently about large groups of people.

"Women" would not have created a warless society. Because there is nothing all "women" agree on.

Ah, so my original point in refuting the statement "IF women ran the world there would be no wars" (On Page One) has finally sunk in, has it?

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick

So, you are saying that Genetic Engineering, Artificial Cell Manipulation, and Artificial Stem Cell alteration is a fundamental part of Human Biology?

It's just machines making machines dude.

That was what I was asking you.

You see what I did there.

So, you are saying that his contributions to this field were not his contributions to this field?

espace.library.uq.edu.au...:9560/larmor.pdf

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

yes. he just connected the dots of other people's work.

And this nullifies his contributions to science, How exactly?

Einstein was not as much a genius so much an imaginative physicist. A very good trait in the world of science. It nulls nothing. But to say he did it because he was a genius is silly.

This has WHAT to do with your original point?

Watch it. Women can do just as good as men and work on Eisensteinian concepts just as good.

Are you implying that there are people whose scores are somehow not accounted for by the RECORDS of SAT scores?

I'm suggesting that an average curve does not null the highest ranking people

You have already provided AMPLE opportunity to prove you wrong. You have yet to divulge what you meant by "Second Derivative Test", and I'm not going to do your research for you.

You've yet to prove me wrong, and if you don't understand what the 2nd derivative shows, then perhaps you should rethink your mathematical superiority.

If looking at a picture is research to you, then that's your problem.

BONUS QUESTION.

explain why your statistics collapse before high school? Could it be, dare I say, that high school students don't care?

nationsreportcard.gov...

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Edrick

What you think that I am arguing, is not, in fact, what I was arguing.

Then what is the point of all your posturing and bickering over amazons and hunting? Enlighten me.

Originally posted by Edrick
So you have proof to the contrary? or just assumptions?

You are a verbal game player, so, to eliminate some of the needless bickering, tell me specifically what you want me to prove in terms of female contribution to science, and I will provide it. Lay out your ground rules, because following your arguments with everyone else has left me with the impression that you make vague claims that women cant "x" or "y", and then just say, "thats not it" when people offer you evidence. Define for me what you want, clearly and unambiguously, and I will get it.

Originally posted by Edrick
"When Allowed" is a hilarious statement.

Is it really? So, you think that the reason there were no great advances in mathematics from the European barbarian hordes prior to the Romans invading means that northern Europeans were intellectually inferior to men from the Mediterranean and Middle East? Or do you have some idea that having access to the work done by others, coupled with the ability to use writing and numerical systems created by others is a plus when doing your own work? Because if you want to make the argument that all Europeans are intellectually inferior to those from the Mediterranean area and Middle East, we will have a different sort of argument.

Originally posted by Edrick
IT sure is good that the United States was "Allowed" to separate from the British Empire, and form its own nation... oh Wait..

What, precisely, does revolution have to do in any way with education and the access to it?

Originally posted by Edrick
But morons don't contribute much, do they?

Genius DOES however, so the amount of morons does not "Cancel Out" the work of Geniuses.

And "greater variance" is virtually meaningless when debating the contributions of individuals, isnt it? So, you brought it up as evidence of..............what? Precisely?

Originally posted by Edrick
What we CAN do, is see the Trends of such groups.

There are more Male Geniuses than Female Geniuses.

And if there are, what does this mean? Does it somehow diminish female genius, or female intellect if there are 5 male geniuses and only 4 females? Or 10 males and 8 females? Is a male with an IQ of 100 somehow better than a female with an IQ of 148, simply because there are more male geniuses? I guess I just dont see your point. What is your point?

Originally posted by Edrick
You cannot do that when debating about Society, which is inherently about large groups of people.

So you are arguing that we cannot treat people as individuals in society because a society is by definition a group of people. Interesting. So, because the bulk of all humans have an IQ of 100, we should not recognize genius in either gender. After all, we cannot differentiate individuals in a society. I am seeing a problem with your logic here. We clearly make distinctions between individuals. All the time. Its a skill we have. Some individual males end up doing menial work, and some individual males end up doing executive work, all based on their individual merit. How can this be? How do we manage that voodoo? I am going to guess it is because we are quite capable of distinguishing individual merit when we want to. Or do you have a better argument otherwise?

Originally posted by Edrick

Ah, so my original point in refuting the statement "IF women ran the world there would be no wars" (On Page One) has finally sunk in, has it?

I personally have never argued otherwise, nor would I. But if it makes you feel better to take credit for "schooling" me on it, by all means, help yourself.

reply to post by Aceofclubs


reply to post by Aceofclubs


It was a joke. Do explain to me why stating that a long time ago in a jungle far far away one woman's choice of choosing a smarter male is sexist? I was talking in the context of religion. if religion is correct, and men came first, then a woman had to choose a smarter man at some point in time.,

If you view it from evolution, intelligence is a better trait to chose in both genders, but if you go far back enough, at some point in time a female chose a smarter male. Evidence says females in these days chose mates, and that if they chose a bad mate, they would sometime chemically abort the birth:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

ergo, the source of intelligence is the choice of a woman long ago choosing to select an intelligent male and have children with him. The woman controlled the births. bad husband, or bad child, no/fewer births.

Not sexist, quite the opposite. It's primitive eugenics. Over time sons and daughters were smarter, and that's the fact. not moral nor right, but they were innocent via ignorance.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91

It's just machines making machines dude.

.....

Gorman91
And no, those technologies did not always exist. Again this is called the iterative process, which comes after the experimental process. These process, however, are based off previous things. The vacuum tube did not always exist, but vacuums have. Man just learned how to use it. No electronics have not always exist, but electricity has, and all electronics are essentially based off of what we learn and know and develop from the properties of electricity. No gunpowder did not always exist in the correct ratio, but people found out that different ratios did different things.

Edrick
So, you are saying that Inventions do not exist, because they are merely ways of organizing the forces of reality to suit specific ends?
You might as well say that Humanity Has never Existed... because Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, etc... FAR predate the existence of man.

Gorman91
You might as well say the universe never existed because it's just a bubble of higgs fields. Are you making a point?

Edrick
That was what I was asking you.

Gorman91
You see what I did there.

Do you?

yes. he just connected the dots of other people's work.

You are going back to this old argument again, eh?

Einstein was not as much a genius so much an imaginative physicist. A very good trait in the world of science. It nulls nothing. But to say he did it because he was a genius is silly.

Genius: someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality

Are you calling the Definition of the Word "Genius" silly?

Watch it. Women can do just as good as men and work on Eisensteinian concepts just as good.

You know why it's called an "Einsteinian Concept?" it is because it was created by Einstein.

I'm suggesting that an average curve does not null the highest ranking people

On average, men score higher than women on the math portion of the SAT's

This means that there are more men scoring higher than there are women scoring higher.

You've yet to prove me wrong, and if you don't understand what the 2nd derivative shows, then perhaps you should rethink your mathematical superiority.

Calculus is not applicable to population distribution graphs because One Scale is not a Function of another.

They are independent scales, thus, calculus does not apply to measurements of it, THUS, "2nd derivatives" is a term that you are using to make yourself appear to be smarter, without even understanding what you are talking about.

explain why your statistics collapse before high school?

???

What are you rambling about now?

This graph shows that males outperform females on math, across the entire timescale of the graph...

Ar you sure you provided the right link?

-Edrick

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Then what is the point of all your posturing and bickering over amazons and hunting? Enlighten me.

Gorman91 was using "Amazons" as an example of "Superior women" (So to speak), and I was refuting the existence of his proof.

You are a verbal game player, so, to eliminate some of the needless bickering, tell me specifically what you want me to prove in terms of female contribution to science, and I will provide it.

Well, you seemed to imply the only reason that women are attributed with inventions and such, is because men write the history, and have kept the contributions of women OUT of history.

I would like you to substantiate your claim.

Lay out your ground rules, because following your arguments with everyone else has left me with the impression that you make vague claims that women cant "x" or "y", and then just say, "thats not it" when people offer you evidence. Define for me what you want, clearly and unambiguously, and I will get it.

Prove that women have had an equal contribution to science, mathematics, engineering, etc... as men.

Prove that men have NOT done most all of the work to *forward* society.

is that clear enough for you?

Is it really? So, you think that the reason there were no great advances in mathematics from the European barbarian hordes prior to the Romans invading means that northern Europeans were intellectually inferior to men from the Mediterranean and Middle East?

Where exactly did this argument come from?

What, precisely, does revolution have to do in any way with education and the access to it?

You are presuming that women were denied access to education.

While MOST ALL of humanity has been denied access to higher learning.

Those that WANTED to learn, did not beg and plead at the foot of their masters, they TOOK it, and did the work themselves.

And "greater variance" is virtually meaningless when debating the contributions of individuals, isnt it? So, you brought it up as evidence of..............what? Precisely?

Men have a greater variance in levels of intelligence.

Therefore, men have more geniuses than women.

And if there are, what does this mean? Does it somehow diminish female genius, or female intellect if there are 5 male geniuses and only 4 females? Or 10 males and 8 females? Is a male with an IQ of 100 somehow better than a female with an IQ of 148, simply because there are more male geniuses? I guess I just dont see your point. What is your point?

My point, is that High Intelligence is more a male specialty than a female specialty, BECAUSE women are more average in intelligence, while men are more varied in intelligence.

There are more Male Geniuses than Female Geniuses.

So you are arguing that we cannot treat people as individuals in society because a society is by definition a group of people.

False.

I argued no such thing.

I am arguing that Men *ON THE WHOLE* have more intellectual capability to forward civilization than women do.

Einstein was a specific example, but I am speaking in terms of Averages across the Whole of society.

I personally have never argued otherwise, nor would I. But if it makes you feel better to take credit for "schooling" me on it, by all means, help yourself.

It was not my intention to "School" you in this topic, I was just glad that someone was finally acknowledging this fact.

Thank you.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


look again. The graph clearly shows girls catching up. What happens if that continues for another 2 years when it starts to oscillate? hmm? And what happens when those girls get to highschool? hmm?

calculus is very applicable here. If a curve of anything shows a + 2nd derivative, then it is improving over time. So do tell, what's going to happen when those grade schoolers get to older grades? Math is universal. The wave is beginning to even out and oscillate. As such, you are wrong. Unless you can explain this. Oh and don't say teenager years with more testosterone is the reason. I started liking girls long before teenage years and dreaming of women commonly by 8th grade. My voice was deep and everything else was going. Puberty starts early these days. I didn't get good grades until highschool


Again, SATs do not measure intelligence. Key word on the SAT: chose the best answer. It does not say chose the right answer. Understanding that alone can boost your grades substantially. The SATs measure your ability to conform to a set directive and method. If anything, it proves girls think outside the box.

Also, you can impress me by saying "why is it called an Einstein concept" when I just showed you just what Einstein did.

Einstein was good at connecting the dots. Not even in a unique way, because he didn't form some new way of looking at the universe. He basically took the universe and drew a grid in 3d. Not new.

And machines making machines means bioengineering is just a new appendage of the human brain to do what it wants. The fact that a spices makes tools does not mean it is something separate. If a robot factory makes cars and mankind built the robots, the cars are still man made.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91

look again. The graph clearly shows girls catching up. What happens if that continues for another 2 years when it starts to oscillate? hmm? And what happens when those girls get to highschool? hmm?

Do you have a graph that SHOWS what happens in high school?

Or are you going to presume again?

calculus is very applicable here. If a curve of anything shows a + 2nd derivative, then it is improving over time.

Calculus applies to the relationship of one aspect of a graph (Data Set) to another.

A graph of intelligence distribution across a population is not applicable to derivations because X is not a function of Y.

One does not determine the other.

Again, SATs do not measure intelligence.

But they DO measure mathematical ability, at which Boys are better than girls.

The SATs measure your ability to conform to a set directive and method.

Yeah, the girls didnt get the math questions wrong... they just got them a *DIFFERENT KIND OF RIGHT*

Seriously?

Is this really your position?

Einstein was good at connecting the dots. Not even in a unique way, because he didn't form some new way of looking at the universe. He basically took the universe and drew a grid in 3d. Not new.

Oh, really? who did Einsteins work before him?

IF they did it before him, why were his contributions so important?

No one NOTICED that Einstein just copied the work of someone else, and did absolutely nothing original himself?

Really?

And machines making machines means bioengineering is just a new appendage of the human brain to do what it wants. The fact that a spices makes tools does not mean it is something separate. If a robot factory makes cars and mankind built the robots, the cars are still man made.

How does this relate to our argument?

-Edrick

reply to post by Gorman91


so what if the males of that day did not ask like we do now and just raped would that mean all womens achivements were really mens? i think not
you are a fool you and have tied your self in knots over and over even with it layed out in front of you, you deny it so i don`t see the point in trying with you any more your trying to WIN an argument not PROVE a point.....you keep worshiping women as your better and attribute anything you like to them but at the end of the day your wrong and foolish

wha..tishhhh(sound of the p***y whipp for you)

reply to post by Edrick


Lets see.. Men vs Women.....

How did I miss this thread... I'm going to go and catch up on the 193 posts and see if I can make my worthy Foe Eldrick understand where his logic is flawed..

Originally posted by Edrick
On average, men score higher than women on the math portion of the SAT's

This means that there are more men scoring higher than there are women scoring higher.

This must really mean a lot to you, you bring it up often, but I am puzzled as to why.

You are correct that it does mean that men are scoring higher on average than women. But what does that bit of data say? That men are inherently better at math? That women will never perform as well as them? That SAT scores are great predictors of actual grades in college in math? I dont want to make any assumptions here, I am curious as to why this bit of data is so significant to you.

reply to post by Edrick


Dude, maybe you're too old to know. I only recently graduated. And it was a joke. if anything, those statistics prove how much better kids cheat at. That's the truth.

Grade school children are better to measure because most kids are too dumb to know how to do that. it is from my experience that cellphone skills peak in junior year.

Anywho, I ask again, do so explain the grammar school. Why do newer generations perform so differently than older ones?

Also, calculus can be used here. The graph marks scores per year, and each gender. There is nothing wrong here. time versus quantity. Thank you, but no, you are wrong.

SATs do not measure mathematics skills beyond that of Math A and basic Math B. The failure rates of Math B in my school was 50/50. Only recently has this improved when they ditched Math B all together. SATs measure your ability to get something right, not your ability to do math. And if you know what Math A is, it is not hard to get something right. The question is did the school teach the subject. I would often logically deduce the answer without knowing the right answer. That's right. I had no freaking idea what I was doing. But if the question had lots of 5s, and the answers all were 4s except for one with 5s, then the chances are that that one is right. Woman will go through each making sure it is right. men like myself skip the actual math part, and just go straight to the educated guessing part. it's far easier to see a pattern and check if its right than to go through them all. Men are better problem solvers from hunting eons past, but a woman can do just as well, she's just more thorough. Indeed she is outside the box, because she wants to make sure all answers are known values. men are risk takers, and that's just what I did. I took risks.

I testify here that besides addition and subtraction, I never did math on the SATs. I did patterns, and skipped math. In parallel, I failed Math B for half the year. But then recognized that I should actually learn the math and move on. Got 90s from then on out.

And the reason that last part relates to our argument is that men and woman CAN now do pretty much each others things via technology.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by vkey08

How did I miss this thread... I'm going to go and catch up on the 193 posts and see if I can make my worthy Foe Eldrick understand where his logic is flawed..

If you are presuming that my logic is flawed, without ever (admittedly) reading the posts, then you have already failed to be a "Worthy" foe.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Edrick
On average, men score higher than women on the math portion of the SAT's

This means that there are more men scoring higher than there are women scoring higher.

This must really mean a lot to you, you bring it up often, but I am puzzled as to why.

You are correct that it does mean that men are scoring higher on average than women. But what does that bit of data say? That men are inherently better at math? That women will never perform as well as them? That SAT scores are great predictors of actual grades in college in math? I dont want to make any assumptions here, I am curious as to why this bit of data is so significant to you.

Allrighty I think this little bit sums up the whole argument and so I shall pop in at this point.

SO WHAT? OK men may be better at mathematics, whoo hoo.. All that really means is that men can add and subtract, and divide and multiply better which has been proven though history that they indeed know how to multiply, and in many different ways.

Women score higher on English and Language skills. Does that mean that they are inherently "better" than men? NO (I defy any man I know to have a child but I digress) Both sexes have their weaknesses, and their strengths, whether or not one is better or not or inherently "more intelligent" has yet to be proven in my eyes. ONE study does not a proof make.